Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it eliminates that language for the bill for all 3 years, sure, it does.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very acceptable amendment because it actually goes to the purpose of the bill originally.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is acceptable. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I will be very happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) after I make a point.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is acceptable.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could the gentleman please repeat that?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last point, Mr. Chairman. NASA has listened to the gentleman, and people have been listening to the gentleman's arguments, because NASA has already agreed to a plus-up or an increase in their spending, in their prioritized spending, of $25 million in this area. I would believe it probably is in reaction to the arguments that the gentleman has been presenting. So in a way the gentleman has won this fight. Adding another $11 million I think is not necessarily the right way to go. I appreciate very much the gentleman's sincerity, but I would have to oppose this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is very articulate, and he is a very responsible Member of this House and has kept our feet to the fire on the Space Station program for many years. I might add that his focus on the Space Station has, I think, improved the Space Station in the end, because people have known that he has been there and watching very closely. However, this money does not come from Space Station. As designed, it is coming out of money that, again, would come right off the top of the bat, which we were hoping to secure for Social Security. So the points the gentleman from Indiana made are very valid, but that is not why the money is coming.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the arguments that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) are making are certainly valid arguments. When we decided to move forward, and this body has decided on many occasions to move forward with the International Space Station, all of us who were voting on that should very well have remembered that we were prioritizing our spending and that it was going to have an impact in other areas just like the areas the gentleman is suggesting and I might add just like the areas that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is bringing up today. We are foregoing spending in certain areas in order to be responsible and not suck up money that should be going into bolstering Social Security. The gentleman is absolutely right. This is part of the cost of the Space Station. The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) does not, however, take this out of Space Station.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I do not support taking it out of Space Station. But we have to realize what the gentleman's amendment is actually doing. It is not taking it out of Space Station. It is adding to that. The money does not come from anywhere. The gentleman from New York is doing a diligent job in trying to meet those objections.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, again I compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for showing due diligence to the arguments that were offered in committee and trying to find another funding level. I would just suggest that he come forward with a specific suggestion. It is not, as has been implied by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that this is not being funded out of Space Station. His arguments about Space Station are valid, in that it is eating money up from programs like the one the gentleman were offering.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me put it this way: I will seriously consider any proposal that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) has that takes money specifically from something that I believe has lower priority than what he is suggesting, but it is up to the gentleman to come up with a specific.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) would further yield, let me put it this way: Taking from the overall research and develop budget is not acceptable because it is not specific. It would not be specific, for example, that money would have to come from another research project. Maybe the project of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) then would be defunded by what the gentleman from New York is proposing, if we went the route that he is suggesting. Unless the gentleman from New York can be more specific than that, I could not.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could the Clerk reread the amendment?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and congratulate the gentleman from Utah for putting it forward and also for laying down a marker. I think that what we are talking about here is a fundamental consciousness that we are trying to instill, not only in America's space program, but in most government activities. Mr. Chairman, the time has passed when we could look at projects just as a bureaucratic endeavor or just something that would be taxpayer- funded totally. If there is any challenge that we have in maintaining a balanced budget and making sure that we put taxpayer dollars to the best use, it is that we have to attract dollars from the private sector into these endeavors to make sure that they are done efficiently, so that they are done in a way that will be beneficial not only to the people who work in the government, but the people who work in the private sector, so that there can be a multiplier effect in terms of the jobs that are created. So for making an investment on the one hand into things such as the space station, we must always be conscious that that space station did not just mean the jobs that were created in building the space station, but it also means the jobs that will be created by economic activity in the private sector that will result from the space station's existence. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) is making sure that we put these dollars to maximum use, so I applaud him for it. Mr. Chairman, I will be, in the near future, proposing a revolutionary new tax concept called Zero Gravity, Zero Tax. It has not been actually introduced as yet, but it is along this same principle, and that is what we would like to do, is to make sure that there is the maximum incentive for private investment in America's space program. As I say, it creates jobs not only in the projects, but it serves as a multiplier effect to create even more jobs once the project is in operation. So again, I commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but in opposition to the emergency supplemental appropriation. The President came to us and promised if we approved his plan for Bosnia that American participation in the operation would last a year and cost about $1 billion. That was nearly 4 years ago and $10 billion ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who I often quote, has said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. Well, today we are being asked to drop more tax dollars down this bottomless pit. It will lead to tens of billions of dollars more being similarly dumped into the Balkans. Those voting for this bill should realize their fingerprints will be all over this ongoing and misguided commitment. Do not kid yourselves. In the end, tens of billions of dollars will be spent in the Balkans, and it will come right out of the hide of Social Security and Medicare reform, right out of any effort to modestly reduce the tax burden on our people, and right out of the hide of our military personnel who are being put at risk in other areas of the world where our national security interests are at stake, those military personnel who are currently being stretched to the point of exhaustion. Perhaps the most distasteful part of what we are doing today is that, in order to get even limited help to our vulnerable defenders, we are being told that we must provide $6 billion more for a military operation that is questionable at best. Even the money that we originally voted for in this House that was supposed to be aimed at improving the overall plight of America's military we now find has been reduced to $4.5 billion, which includes projects that have nothing to do with our national security or improving the lot of our troops and their families. Military plus-up dollars will be spent, among other things, on naval bases in Portugal, barracks and tank washes in Germany, and base improvements throughout Europe. In other words, it is being spent to keep us mired in Europe's problems and paying for Europe's defense. We have been suckered in again. For decades we have provided Europe's defense and got little thanks for it. Now that the Cold War is over, they insist that we spend tens of billions of dollars more for their stability and that we must reaffirm our commitment, a very expensive commitment to their security for decades to come. We have done our part for NATO. We have done our part for Europe. Let us have the Europeans step forward and carry their own load rather than taking it out of the hide of the American people. I have no doubt that the Serbs are committing the crimes against the people of Kosovo that are claimed. Long ago we should have armed freedom-loving and democracy-loving Kosovars so they can defend themselves as Ronald Reagan did with the Afghans. Instead of giving into the demands of our European buddies, we are now carrying the full load. We have given into the demands of our European friends, and we end up carrying the full load, leading the fight, emptying our Treasury, and recklessly putting our own forces in other parts of the world in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues not to associate themselves with this irrational and risky strategy, this expensive strategy that is draining our Treasury. Do not be blackmailed into supporting this poorly conceived Balkan operation, this undeclared war. The issues of plussing up our military should be separate from this wasting of even more of limited defense dollars on such an adventure as we see down in the Balkans. Vote against this emergency supplemental. Send a message to our European allies. We have carried their burden for too long. Yes, they deserve to be applauded for their emotional pleas that something must be done, but let them do it. Why is it up to the United States to always lead the charge, to empty our Treasury, to put our people at risk? This is not a case of a dichotomy of either doing nothing and watching the Kosovars go under or sending our troops in and spending $50 billion. No, we could have helped the Kosovars, or the other option is let the Europeans take care of the problem in their own backyard. This is the responsible position. It is irresponsible for us to continue spending limited defense dollars, stretching our troops out to the point that they are vulnerable everywhere, and just taking it out of the hide of the American people. I ask for this emergency supplemental to be defeated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, three years ago, voters in Taiwan rejected communist China's attempts at military intimidation and handed a landslide victory to Mr. Lee Teng-hui in an election that completed Taiwan's transition to a full-fledged democracy. Now, in 1999, President Lee has continued to make strides toward full democracy and is seeking to reduce tensions in the Taiwan Strait. He has repeatedly urged leaders on the communist mainland to discuss reunification issues under the premises of the need for democracy for all Chinese people. He has also shown leadership in helping neighboring Asian countries find solutions for the regional financial crisis. On the eve of President Lee Teng-hui's third anniversary in office, I wish President Lee continued success. His election three years ago was the first time a Chinese society had democratically elected its leader. The election represents a victory for the people of Taiwan in their commendable development of full democracy. Congratulations to the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take a great deal of time. Let me just state, it was mentioned earlier about a vote that I took earlier and I just thought I would clear that issue up. Let me make it very clear. During the Gulf War, when I was here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and myself spent considerable time at the White House trying to convince the White House to come here for a vote and to make sure that they sought Congressional approval. Let me just say that, on that vote that was brought up by my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), it is 10 years later and I think I am 10 years wiser. I think I would have voted differently at that time. Even then I knew it was important for the White House to come here and seek approval. Now, after thinking about it and seeing it and having experienced this body, I do believe that in a free society it is important for our power, the legislative branch, to express itself on such issues as this. I do not believe that is hypocrisy. I think that is learning. But even then I knew it was important for the President to come here. I thought I would make that clear.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is wrong about my vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been spirited, it has been heartfelt, and let me say that I appreciate the sincerity as well as the hard work that has gone into this, but the sincerity on both sides of this issue, and one note of which I am just a little bit upset about, and I will just state it for the record: I think it is disconcerting to me that today this body is being forced to vote on two separate issues, and I am not just condemning the President, but I am also going to put this on the House leadership, which is Republican. When we are talking about issues of life and death, of peace and war, we should not be linking together two separate issues. This is not right. Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve an accountability, deserve us to vote up and down on whether or not we should improve the readiness of our troops without having to know that we are being forced to vote on it because, if we do not, that we will not have some other issue come through, and this is whether we vote for war in the Balkans or whether we vote for readiness. These are two different issues. So I am a little upset about that, and I think the American people deserve better. Finally let me just say about this debate, because this is the last time I am going to have a chance to talk on this, and I will make it very brief: We are debating something that goes far beyond micromanaging. Mr. Chairman, we should recognize what this debate is really about, and it is not micromanaging our troops. What we are debating is far from that. It is just the opposite. In fact, what we are debating is the biggest issue of all. It is what the strategy should be for the United States of America in the post- Cold War world. Are we going to have the same kind of involvement? Now we postured, there was a lot of posturing going on last week in those votes. But it is these votes today that really determine where we are at, where Congress is at. If we continue to carry the burden of Europe, if we continue to be the policemen of the world as we were during the Cold War, if we permit the President to continue having and exercising these expanded powers that we gave him during the Cold War, our country will not be a safer place, and we will put our troops in jeopardy because we cannot afford to carry that burden anymore. So while I would like to present my amendment, I recognize that those people who voted against the Istook amendment would not be voting for my amendment because it actually goes a step further, but I ask the people in voting on the final vote today to consider that we are not just voting for the Balkan war and to upgrade our readiness in other parts of the world, but we are also voting on what our policies are going to be, whether or not we are going to have this expanded role in the world anymore, which I do not believe the United States can afford to do. So, with that said, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.